by Cody Kitaura
My mom has no idea how to use an iPod. She was overjoyed when I passed down my white iPod Shuffle to her a couple years ago when I upgraded, but she had no clue how it worked.
I painstakingly went over the process with her several times, showing her the nuances of Apple's iTunes software as she took careful notes.
A few days later, she asked me to explain it again. And again. And again.
What my mom needs is an mp3 player without the complicated software, downloads and playlist-syncing. Something she can just pick up, hit play, and take with her out into the garden.
Something like SanDisk's new slotMusic Player – a simple, no-frills mp3 player that plays high-quality mp3s from micro-SD cards.
There's only one problem: SanDisk isn't trying to sell slotMusic to my mom. It's trying to sell it to me.
The slotMusic system eliminates mp3 downloads and the need for physical CDs by selling music pre-loaded onto 1 GB micro-SD cards, like the ones already found in many cell phones. These cards are then loaded into SanDisk's own player, released earlier this month.
The player is a small, sleek brick about the size of a pack of gum with no LCD screen and only minimal controls. Just pop in the music and go. No confusion over which bitrate to choose when ripping mp3s from CDs. No wrangling with big-brother DRM technology found in downloads from iTunes and other online music stores.
As an added bonus, the cards are also playable by many cell phones, and can be read by any computer using the included USB adapter (or many SD card readers). The SanDisk slotMusic system has the benefit of enjoying a huge pre-existing infrastructure of compatible devices, but there are two problems: the price, and the music.
Simply put, no one under 30 years old will buy a SanDisk slotMusic player or card. Although the player is a reasonable $19.99 (and, of course, isn't needed if you're planning on listening with your cell phone), the cards retail for $14.99 each – $5 more than an album from most online sources, including mp3 goliath iTunes.
SanDisk would be quick to remind skeptics that extra $5 will also get them a 1 GB micro-SD card, which later could be packed with videos, pictures, documents, as well as much more than one album's worth of music.
But $5 more (currently $21.59 for SanDisk's version) will get a card with twice the capacity, which would make much more sense in a cell phone, especially considering most phones' memory cards are surprisingly difficult to swap.
But back to my mom. This all sounds like something that would be perfect for her, right?
Well, as long as she's into Usher, Young Jeezy or Nelly, sure.
The slotMusic library launched with about 30 different albums (11 were in stock recently at the Arden Way Best Buy), and while my mom might enjoy Elvis' “30 No. 1 Hits” (which I think my dad already owns on CD) or maybe even ABBA's “Gold” or Jimmy Buffet's “Songs You Know By Heart,” I doubt she'd be too interested in the latest offerings from the Pussycat Dolls, Rise Against or Rihanna.
Since it seems unlikely that young mp3-aficionados would suddenly flock to again buying music in a physical form, SanDisk's best chance at success will come from its older, less-tech-savvy customer base. The absence of albums these people would buy is a huge misstep, but it's still early in the life of slotMusic.
SanDisk's website brags, “The first slotMusic cards are here. Check back soon to order your favorites.”
Let's just hope they talk to somebody's mom before they finalize their next wave of releases.
Ultra-cheap netbooks won't go away when the economy recovers
|
Labels:
tech columns
by Cody Kitaura
As the global financial crisis worsens, people are cutting back wherever they can – cheaper food, less driving, and, apparently, smaller, cheaper computers.
Meet the netbook – an emerging type of ultra-small, ultra-cheap and underpowered laptop computer that's gaining popularity all around the world. They're great for surfing the web, and that's about it.
Analysts say amid the shrinking paychecks and tightening credit being felt around the world, consumers are being drawn to netbooks.
The UK's Telegraph newspaper writes that netbook sales are “helping the sector remain buoyant despite (a) global financial crisis.”
While it seems logical to assume that economically pained consumers would be drawn to these ultra-cheap machines for their basic surfing needs, some say it's unclear whether people actually want computers like this, or if they just happen to have the right price tag.
CNET writer Erica Ogg says it's too early to tell:
But history says the U.S. economy will eventually recover. When it does and we all have a little more money to spend on our computers, will these tiny surfing machines still sell?
In a word, yes. In the short time netbooks have been around, they've already stormed onto the market and filled several key niches that will ensure their longevity.
Like with any new technology, as soon as netbooks began to appear, there was a frantic race to see who could be the first to crack open his or her cutesy, underpowered rig and beef it up with extra features.
The current crop of modded netbooks boast increased storage space, custom touchscreens, bluetooth and GPS. Some of these have already turned into standard features on some netbooks, but for now, the challenge of cramming the guts of a USB GPS dongle into the already-crowded innards of an ASUS netbook is more about the thrill of the hack than a practical way to add features.
This level of tinkering is inherent in the very definition of a netbook: cheap and underpowered. If they were expensive and well-equipped, there would be nothing left to cram inside, and they might be too expensive to risk frying on the operating table.
But experienced hackers and modders aren't the only ones buying netbooks.
Netbooks also represent an affordable, practical way to spread technology to the developing nations of the world. In fact, one of the original catalysts for the netbook movement was One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a sub-$100, durable laptop for educating children in the world's poorest nations.
Brad Linder, of netbook-portal Liliputer.com, writes:
Now that the race to develop the best ultra-cheap, ultra-small laptop is between multi-national corporations with deep pockets and not just charities, developments should come faster. Charitable organizations will be able to piggyback off the companies' innovation and succeed in spreading technology to the world's developing nations.
These purchases will only fuel the netbook market more, as companies battle to have a hand in netbooks that will be sold to entire nations at once.
Even if the current exploding netbook market is the result of the crumbling economy, sales of netbooks will not fall when the economy recovers. When American consumers eventually regain their purchasing power, netbooks will still make sense – but for different reasons.
[photo courtesy Flickr user whurley]
What is a netbook?
A netbook is like a mini laptop computer. Its screen is 10 inches or smaller, it has no disc drive, its processor speed is much slower than most laptops, and many include solid-state, flash-based storage instead of conventional hard disc drives (although netbooks with conventional hard drives up to 160 GB are available).
Why would anyone want such a slow computer?
Netbooks aren't made for activities that require beefy processors and huge amounts of RAM. They're made for light-duty functions like surfing the web or maybe some typing.
The benefits of the underpowered specs include:
How much do they cost?
Most netbooks are around $400, although some are more expensive.
Who makes them?
Right now, the most popular netbooks are made by ASUS and Acer, the two pioneers in the market. Dell and HP also offer netbooks, as do tons of smaller companies none of us have probably ever heard of.
As the global financial crisis worsens, people are cutting back wherever they can – cheaper food, less driving, and, apparently, smaller, cheaper computers.
Meet the netbook – an emerging type of ultra-small, ultra-cheap and underpowered laptop computer that's gaining popularity all around the world. They're great for surfing the web, and that's about it.
Analysts say amid the shrinking paychecks and tightening credit being felt around the world, consumers are being drawn to netbooks.
The UK's Telegraph newspaper writes that netbook sales are “helping the sector remain buoyant despite (a) global financial crisis.”
While it seems logical to assume that economically pained consumers would be drawn to these ultra-cheap machines for their basic surfing needs, some say it's unclear whether people actually want computers like this, or if they just happen to have the right price tag.
CNET writer Erica Ogg says it's too early to tell:
“Perhaps because of consumers' economic worries, a lot of sub-$500 computers sold in the third quarter. Whether it's a new worldwide netbook market that's being created, or they're cannibalizing cheap laptops, isn't quite clear yet, according to Gartner PC analyst Mika Kitagawa.”
But history says the U.S. economy will eventually recover. When it does and we all have a little more money to spend on our computers, will these tiny surfing machines still sell?
In a word, yes. In the short time netbooks have been around, they've already stormed onto the market and filled several key niches that will ensure their longevity.
Like with any new technology, as soon as netbooks began to appear, there was a frantic race to see who could be the first to crack open his or her cutesy, underpowered rig and beef it up with extra features.
The current crop of modded netbooks boast increased storage space, custom touchscreens, bluetooth and GPS. Some of these have already turned into standard features on some netbooks, but for now, the challenge of cramming the guts of a USB GPS dongle into the already-crowded innards of an ASUS netbook is more about the thrill of the hack than a practical way to add features.
This level of tinkering is inherent in the very definition of a netbook: cheap and underpowered. If they were expensive and well-equipped, there would be nothing left to cram inside, and they might be too expensive to risk frying on the operating table.
But experienced hackers and modders aren't the only ones buying netbooks.
Netbooks also represent an affordable, practical way to spread technology to the developing nations of the world. In fact, one of the original catalysts for the netbook movement was One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a sub-$100, durable laptop for educating children in the world's poorest nations.
Brad Linder, of netbook-portal Liliputer.com, writes:
“While adoption of the (One Laptop Per Child's) XO Laptop has been a bit slower than expectations, and the price has risen well above $100 (but still below $200), (founder Nicholas) Negroponte and his group demonstrated that you could make a low-cost laptop that is capable of performing many of the most common computing tasks. It could be portable, lightweight, durable, and low-power, yet still surf the web, handle Office documents, and even let you write your own programs.”
Now that the race to develop the best ultra-cheap, ultra-small laptop is between multi-national corporations with deep pockets and not just charities, developments should come faster. Charitable organizations will be able to piggyback off the companies' innovation and succeed in spreading technology to the world's developing nations.
These purchases will only fuel the netbook market more, as companies battle to have a hand in netbooks that will be sold to entire nations at once.
Even if the current exploding netbook market is the result of the crumbling economy, sales of netbooks will not fall when the economy recovers. When American consumers eventually regain their purchasing power, netbooks will still make sense – but for different reasons.
[photo courtesy Flickr user whurley]
FAQ
What is a netbook?
A netbook is like a mini laptop computer. Its screen is 10 inches or smaller, it has no disc drive, its processor speed is much slower than most laptops, and many include solid-state, flash-based storage instead of conventional hard disc drives (although netbooks with conventional hard drives up to 160 GB are available).
Why would anyone want such a slow computer?
Netbooks aren't made for activities that require beefy processors and huge amounts of RAM. They're made for light-duty functions like surfing the web or maybe some typing.
The benefits of the underpowered specs include:
- increased battery life (sometimes up to 7 or 8 hours on a single charge)
- lower weight, portability (most netbooks weigh in around 2 pounds)
- increased durability (solid-state drives are more resistant to drops and shakes)
How much do they cost?
Most netbooks are around $400, although some are more expensive.
Who makes them?
Right now, the most popular netbooks are made by ASUS and Acer, the two pioneers in the market. Dell and HP also offer netbooks, as do tons of smaller companies none of us have probably ever heard of.
Columnist Clive Thompson connects tech world and "meatspace"
|
Labels:
assigned columns
by Cody Kitaura
Every once and a while, it's important for geeks and the tech-obsessed to step away from the glow of their laptop screens and out into “meatspace.”
But first, they should let tech writer and columnist Clive Thompson make sense of what they'll find there.
Thompson is a freelance columnist for Wired magazine, and specializes in writing about the ways science and technology influence our culture – and vice versa.
Sometimes the hardest connections to draw with technology are the ways it interacts with the outside world, and this is where Thompson excels. He's written extensive pieces on the topic, like this lengthy article for New York Times Magazine explaining the way social networking and Twitter influence the relationships between people in real life.
He also appears regularly in Wired magazine, writing columns with provocative titles like “Games Give Free Rein to the Douchebag Within” – a piece in which he discusses what the in-game decisions video gamers make might say about their real-world personas.
He writes about obscure topics at times, but somehow always make a strong connection to the real world, like his piece about how playing Halo 3 online helped him realize why suicide bombing makes sense for some.
His tech commentaries are always entertaining and thought-provoking, but are much more than some computer geek's caffeine-fueled rants. Sometimes Thompson's opinion isn't even obvious in the story until halfway through, because he piles in so many facts, outside quotes and research. Doing this only helps to increase his credibility, and makes it incredibly hard to argue against any of the points he makes.
In addition to appearing in Wired, New York Times Magazine and several other tech and science publications, Thompson has been posting to his blog, Collision Detection, since 2002. He is a strong advocate of blogging and has said it helps him to keep ideas flowing in his mind – a vital process for a freelance writer.
“But more often it's inspiration and keeping my intellectual wheels greased so that I'm able to continually think of new ideas,” he told MIT's Martha Henry. “It probably makes my writing faster and looser because I'm accustomed to regularly sitting down in the evening and blogging 2000 words on four different topics.”
Although Thompson is quick to extol the ways blogging has helped his writing abilities, his blog also has an ulterior motive: making him more popular on the web.
“I wanted to establish myself as easy to find on Google,” he explained. “So I started the blog because when you're a freelancer, you don't belong to an organization. It's very hard to find you. So I needed to establish an unshakable presence.”
Thompson's blog topics are varied and somewhat scatter-brained, but he doesn't simply throw together links and accompanying posts of a couple dozen words. He said his blog started as a place for short posts like those, but in time evolved into only posting when he had “something interesting to say about it.”
“I blogged less frequently and I blogged longer little essays, things that were at least 500 words and sometimes up to 1000 words,” he told Henry. “Every posting became like a mini essay. And that's the way I still write today.”
His blog is currently the No. 1 Google result in searches for “Clive Thompson,” and it ranks in the top 20 results for “Clive.”
The more a reader is exposed to Thompson, the more obvious his extensive understanding of tech and the way it influences society becomes. He's able to see more than the obvious uses and effects of technology (a June column wonders if a video game not clearing the corpses of defeated foes affects the moral impacts on gamers), and explain them clearly to readers.
Plus, he's confident enough in his masculinity to have a cute, fluffy AOL Instant Messenger screen name: pomeranian99. Maybe next time he's online, I'll ask him about it.
[photo courtesy flickr user cambodia4kidsorg]
[video courtesy Beth Kanter]
Every once and a while, it's important for geeks and the tech-obsessed to step away from the glow of their laptop screens and out into “meatspace.”
But first, they should let tech writer and columnist Clive Thompson make sense of what they'll find there.
Thompson is a freelance columnist for Wired magazine, and specializes in writing about the ways science and technology influence our culture – and vice versa.
Sometimes the hardest connections to draw with technology are the ways it interacts with the outside world, and this is where Thompson excels. He's written extensive pieces on the topic, like this lengthy article for New York Times Magazine explaining the way social networking and Twitter influence the relationships between people in real life.
He also appears regularly in Wired magazine, writing columns with provocative titles like “Games Give Free Rein to the Douchebag Within” – a piece in which he discusses what the in-game decisions video gamers make might say about their real-world personas.
He writes about obscure topics at times, but somehow always make a strong connection to the real world, like his piece about how playing Halo 3 online helped him realize why suicide bombing makes sense for some.
His tech commentaries are always entertaining and thought-provoking, but are much more than some computer geek's caffeine-fueled rants. Sometimes Thompson's opinion isn't even obvious in the story until halfway through, because he piles in so many facts, outside quotes and research. Doing this only helps to increase his credibility, and makes it incredibly hard to argue against any of the points he makes.
In addition to appearing in Wired, New York Times Magazine and several other tech and science publications, Thompson has been posting to his blog, Collision Detection, since 2002. He is a strong advocate of blogging and has said it helps him to keep ideas flowing in his mind – a vital process for a freelance writer.
“But more often it's inspiration and keeping my intellectual wheels greased so that I'm able to continually think of new ideas,” he told MIT's Martha Henry. “It probably makes my writing faster and looser because I'm accustomed to regularly sitting down in the evening and blogging 2000 words on four different topics.”
Although Thompson is quick to extol the ways blogging has helped his writing abilities, his blog also has an ulterior motive: making him more popular on the web.
“I wanted to establish myself as easy to find on Google,” he explained. “So I started the blog because when you're a freelancer, you don't belong to an organization. It's very hard to find you. So I needed to establish an unshakable presence.”
Thompson's blog topics are varied and somewhat scatter-brained, but he doesn't simply throw together links and accompanying posts of a couple dozen words. He said his blog started as a place for short posts like those, but in time evolved into only posting when he had “something interesting to say about it.”
“I blogged less frequently and I blogged longer little essays, things that were at least 500 words and sometimes up to 1000 words,” he told Henry. “Every posting became like a mini essay. And that's the way I still write today.”
His blog is currently the No. 1 Google result in searches for “Clive Thompson,” and it ranks in the top 20 results for “Clive.”
The more a reader is exposed to Thompson, the more obvious his extensive understanding of tech and the way it influences society becomes. He's able to see more than the obvious uses and effects of technology (a June column wonders if a video game not clearing the corpses of defeated foes affects the moral impacts on gamers), and explain them clearly to readers.
Plus, he's confident enough in his masculinity to have a cute, fluffy AOL Instant Messenger screen name: pomeranian99. Maybe next time he's online, I'll ask him about it.
[photo courtesy flickr user cambodia4kidsorg]
[video courtesy Beth Kanter]
GPS should evolve into a helpful tool, not an overbearing leash
|
Labels:
tech columns
by Cody Kitaura
Our makeshift search party lay spread around the room, the exhausted four of us sprawled across the couches. The sun was barely up, and we had found our missing friend after about an hour of looking. Or, rather, he had found us.
“Hey, babe,” he had said casually as he called his girlfriend and said he was ready to come home. She was, understandably, less calm.
She had been crying, sure that this was his way of breaking up with her – leaving in the middle of the night, leaving behind his two dogs and everything he had brought with him to the party that night.
His explanation: He had passed out in the field of a nearby elementary school during a late-night drunken walk.
His answer had the same calm demeanor he always carried, but he didn't look as cold as I imagined someone who had just spent a few hours lying in a field in a thin white sweatshirt and painter's hat would. I didn't bother to question his explanation, but his girlfriend, curled up and arms crossed, seemed to feel differently.
Perhaps she still carried the same suspicion she had woken me up with at about 3 a.m. – that he was with another girl. I had struggled to calm her with my groggy words, my thoughts slurred by exhaustion. I had told her how I saw him leave after giving directions to the house to someone over the phone. She had cried onto my shoulder, pouring out a thousand impossible questions and dialing his cell phone repeatedly.
As I wondered if we would ever know the truth behind what he had really done that night, a friend who had driven out from Downtown to help in the search offered a revelation as he poked at his new cell phone.
“If we all had iPhones, we could link them together and see where we all were on a map.”
Of course, if the missing friend's story was true, a GPS tether of some kind would have helped us find him. But if his girlfriend's hunch was right and he hadn't wanted to be found, he would have just turned off the GPS device and we'd have been no better off.
But we shouldn't really need GPS devices or other surreptitious technology to help us hunt down our friends and check their stories. We should be able to trust their explanations. Technology can create great shortcuts and safety nets for rare situations like this, but is it really an area of our lives we want constantly mapped and monitored?
Do we want the role of technology in our lives to be more George Jetson or George Orwell? Do we want evolving tech like GPS to eventually end up as a helpful tool used occasionally when we get lost, or do we want it end up as a heavy-handed way of keeping tabs on our friends, family and employees?
Companies like T-Trac will allow you to track the movements of a car in real-time for about $50 a month. Since technology like this is useless if the person being tracked knows about it, the only way to use it properly is to hide the tracking bug, James-Bond-style.
GPS technology is great, and is useful for all kinds of navigational help, but as technology continues to evolve we'll continue to be faced with the choice of just how wired we want our daily lives to be. Will we live in a society based on trust and integrity, or will we have to plant GPS tracking devices in the clothing of our significant others (as Vanessa explains) to truly determine whether they spent the night lying in a field or lying in the arms of another lover?
(note from Cody): Here's an awesome video example of tech invading places it doesn't belong. I wanted to use it in this column but couldn't work it in:
Our makeshift search party lay spread around the room, the exhausted four of us sprawled across the couches. The sun was barely up, and we had found our missing friend after about an hour of looking. Or, rather, he had found us.
“Hey, babe,” he had said casually as he called his girlfriend and said he was ready to come home. She was, understandably, less calm.
She had been crying, sure that this was his way of breaking up with her – leaving in the middle of the night, leaving behind his two dogs and everything he had brought with him to the party that night.
His explanation: He had passed out in the field of a nearby elementary school during a late-night drunken walk.
His answer had the same calm demeanor he always carried, but he didn't look as cold as I imagined someone who had just spent a few hours lying in a field in a thin white sweatshirt and painter's hat would. I didn't bother to question his explanation, but his girlfriend, curled up and arms crossed, seemed to feel differently.
Perhaps she still carried the same suspicion she had woken me up with at about 3 a.m. – that he was with another girl. I had struggled to calm her with my groggy words, my thoughts slurred by exhaustion. I had told her how I saw him leave after giving directions to the house to someone over the phone. She had cried onto my shoulder, pouring out a thousand impossible questions and dialing his cell phone repeatedly.
As I wondered if we would ever know the truth behind what he had really done that night, a friend who had driven out from Downtown to help in the search offered a revelation as he poked at his new cell phone.
“If we all had iPhones, we could link them together and see where we all were on a map.”
Of course, if the missing friend's story was true, a GPS tether of some kind would have helped us find him. But if his girlfriend's hunch was right and he hadn't wanted to be found, he would have just turned off the GPS device and we'd have been no better off.
But we shouldn't really need GPS devices or other surreptitious technology to help us hunt down our friends and check their stories. We should be able to trust their explanations. Technology can create great shortcuts and safety nets for rare situations like this, but is it really an area of our lives we want constantly mapped and monitored?
Do we want the role of technology in our lives to be more George Jetson or George Orwell? Do we want evolving tech like GPS to eventually end up as a helpful tool used occasionally when we get lost, or do we want it end up as a heavy-handed way of keeping tabs on our friends, family and employees?
Companies like T-Trac will allow you to track the movements of a car in real-time for about $50 a month. Since technology like this is useless if the person being tracked knows about it, the only way to use it properly is to hide the tracking bug, James-Bond-style.
GPS technology is great, and is useful for all kinds of navigational help, but as technology continues to evolve we'll continue to be faced with the choice of just how wired we want our daily lives to be. Will we live in a society based on trust and integrity, or will we have to plant GPS tracking devices in the clothing of our significant others (as Vanessa explains) to truly determine whether they spent the night lying in a field or lying in the arms of another lover?
(note from Cody): Here's an awesome video example of tech invading places it doesn't belong. I wanted to use it in this column but couldn't work it in:
The presidential debates are a chance to drink - that's about it
|
Labels:
assigned columns
by Cody Kitaura
Viewers of tonight's second presidential debate might have tuned in expecting the town hall format to provide intimate responses to the questions of everyday citizens. Maybe Senators John McCain and Barack Obama would have shed their thick political facades and answered from the heart instead of dolling out the same talking points their campaigns have fed the media for what seems like an eternity now.
But those viewers would have been wrong. The "town hall" format was as tightly controlled as any other debate, with "average citizens" stumbling over carefully prepared questions and moderator Tom Brokaw trying in vain to hold McCain and Obama to the agreed time limits for responses.
And if realism was what the hosts of tonight’s debate were searching for, they should’ve picked a real town hall to host it in, not a soundstage that looked like a freshly painted ride at Disneyland. The bright blue railings and starkly contrasting red carpet didn’t lend any authenticity to the format.
And once the two candidates fielded the questions, which were almost certainly screened with intense stringency, they often avoided giving a specific answer in favor of citing the same talking points anyone half-following the election has already heard a thousand times.
The Bush administration squandered our budget surpluses.
My opponent has never opposed his party on a single issue.
I’ll use a scalpel, not a hatchet, to fix the budget.
Sigh. Haven’t we heard all of this before? Are the candidates even listening to the questions being asked? Doesn’t that red light mean it’s time to stop talking?
But don’t despair. America is about freedom and ingenuity. The freedom and ingenuity to use insincere debates like tonight’s excuse for a “town hall” meeting for the only thing that really makes sense anymore: drinking.
Clearly, the only original thing that can possibly come out of tonight’s debate is a debate-themed drinking game.
Every time one of the candidates falls back into one of their stereotypical stump speeches, the participants of this game will drink.
Here are some of the most commonly used phrases from tonight’s debate – perfect triggers for alcohol consumption:
“My friends” – McCain’s signature tagline, these two words seemed to pop up at the end of almost every “answer” he gave. Drink up.
The “scalpel” – this metaphor for precise analysis of the country’s budget appears, without fail, in almost every mention Obama makes of our financial woes. Bottoms up.
McCain’s military record – as if we really need another reminder of the years and years McCain spent serving our country, these experiences appears in far too many of McCain’s illustrations and responses. We get it already. Have a sip.
Obama’s mother – sincerely or not, the compelling story of Obama’s mother and her struggle to raise a family alone appears at least once in every appearance. Chug.
Brokaw (or whoever is moderating) reminding the candidates of the strict time limits – not that they’ll listen, anyway. Down the hatch.
These are just a few of the broken-record-style responses the candidates dolled out in large doses at tonight’s debate. Even the most casual observer would likely find many, many more examples. So get creative. Don’t get discouraged if there’s nothing new or informative in the debates – just do what America does best: turn it into a party.
The third presidential debate is Oct. 15 – that should leave plenty of time to stock your liquor cabinets.
Viewers of tonight's second presidential debate might have tuned in expecting the town hall format to provide intimate responses to the questions of everyday citizens. Maybe Senators John McCain and Barack Obama would have shed their thick political facades and answered from the heart instead of dolling out the same talking points their campaigns have fed the media for what seems like an eternity now.
But those viewers would have been wrong. The "town hall" format was as tightly controlled as any other debate, with "average citizens" stumbling over carefully prepared questions and moderator Tom Brokaw trying in vain to hold McCain and Obama to the agreed time limits for responses.
And if realism was what the hosts of tonight’s debate were searching for, they should’ve picked a real town hall to host it in, not a soundstage that looked like a freshly painted ride at Disneyland. The bright blue railings and starkly contrasting red carpet didn’t lend any authenticity to the format.
And once the two candidates fielded the questions, which were almost certainly screened with intense stringency, they often avoided giving a specific answer in favor of citing the same talking points anyone half-following the election has already heard a thousand times.
The Bush administration squandered our budget surpluses.
My opponent has never opposed his party on a single issue.
I’ll use a scalpel, not a hatchet, to fix the budget.
Sigh. Haven’t we heard all of this before? Are the candidates even listening to the questions being asked? Doesn’t that red light mean it’s time to stop talking?
But don’t despair. America is about freedom and ingenuity. The freedom and ingenuity to use insincere debates like tonight’s excuse for a “town hall” meeting for the only thing that really makes sense anymore: drinking.
Clearly, the only original thing that can possibly come out of tonight’s debate is a debate-themed drinking game.
Every time one of the candidates falls back into one of their stereotypical stump speeches, the participants of this game will drink.
Here are some of the most commonly used phrases from tonight’s debate – perfect triggers for alcohol consumption:
“My friends” – McCain’s signature tagline, these two words seemed to pop up at the end of almost every “answer” he gave. Drink up.
The “scalpel” – this metaphor for precise analysis of the country’s budget appears, without fail, in almost every mention Obama makes of our financial woes. Bottoms up.
McCain’s military record – as if we really need another reminder of the years and years McCain spent serving our country, these experiences appears in far too many of McCain’s illustrations and responses. We get it already. Have a sip.
Obama’s mother – sincerely or not, the compelling story of Obama’s mother and her struggle to raise a family alone appears at least once in every appearance. Chug.
Brokaw (or whoever is moderating) reminding the candidates of the strict time limits – not that they’ll listen, anyway. Down the hatch.
These are just a few of the broken-record-style responses the candidates dolled out in large doses at tonight’s debate. Even the most casual observer would likely find many, many more examples. So get creative. Don’t get discouraged if there’s nothing new or informative in the debates – just do what America does best: turn it into a party.
The third presidential debate is Oct. 15 – that should leave plenty of time to stock your liquor cabinets.
"Attack of the Show!" proves cool people can love technology, too
|
Labels:
assigned columns
by Cody Kitaura
Kevin Pereira and Olivia Munn are the kind of geeks that don't really exist in real life – attractive, stylish, funny and witty. They're the kind of make-believe geeks that cable TV networks cast to host tech variety shows like G4's “Attack of the Show!” in an attempt to trick viewers into thinking that geeks can be cool and stylish, too.
There's only one problem: Pereira and Munn actually are cool. Despite the fact they anchor the extremely niche talk show aimed at gadget-and-tech-obsessed 20-somethings, they seem to be more focused on hip gadgets and social networking than motherboards and graphing calculators.
“Attack of the Show!” covers a wide variety of topics: gadget reviews, movie sneak peaks and interviews, tech-industry news, viral videos and sex and relationship advice. The hosts banter back and forth sharply between the show's many segments, nipping at each other with quick wit and practical jokes.
But you wouldn't know this if you watched it online. It seems logical that G4, the only U.S. network focused mainly on technology and video gaming, would at least follow the example of major networks like NBC and stream episodes of its programs online. But “Attack of the Show!” follows a different model: Each individual segment of the show can be streamed online, but it's all but impossible to find full episodes of the show anywhere around the Net. Each episode is trimmed down, eliminating the loveable banter and segues between segments – unless it contains something that could turn into a viral success, like Munn's best rendition of “The Goonies' ” truffle shuffle.
Watching episodes of the show in truncated sections like this has its ups and downs. The segments are grouped by date on the show's blog, and while it does allow the viewer to pick only the sections of the show that seem interesting, it makes “Attack of the Show!” feel more like a half-dozen or so mini-shows than one continuous program.
Once one segment is done playing online, the site's video player will recommend a similar clip, รก la YouTube's “related videos” pane. This is great if you want to sit and watch a whole month's worth of gadget reviews or comic releases, but it makes it far too easy to get lost in old clips and forget which episode you started on.
But perhaps this is how “Attack of the Show!” is meant to be watched. The producers of the show clearly pay attention to Internet trends (a regular feature on the show is “Around the Net,” which focuses on the most popular viral videos of the day), so maybe “Attack of the Show!” is meant to be seen as several short clips rather than the 60-minute episode that is pumped into living rooms.
And the Web seems to offer a more genuine look into the hosts' personalities than do the full episodes. Bounce around the “Attack of the Show!” website enough and it's easy to land on Munn and Pereira's personal sites.
The two are intensely open with their Web presences: each has a frequently updated blog and links to many of their other accounts. Watching the two make quips at each other on-air is one way of getting to know their personalities, but it's completely different to watch a drunken Munn answer questions posed by readers of her blog, or to see photos on Pereira's Flickr account of the game of Doom he played on a recent Virgin America flight.
Munn and Pereira's extensive Web presence helps lend credibility to their hosting roles on “Attack of the Show!” Because really, who would trust someone to host a tech variety show if he or she didn't have a Twitter account? (Munn on Twitter) (Pereira on Twitter)
The show can sometimes venture too deeply into serious-geek territory, with extensive coverage of comic book conventions and nitpicking critiques of the extra features included on DVD releases. But the show never forgets its target audience, taking every possible opportunity to shamelessly exploit Munn's sexuality: A recent skit on the show had her moaning in ecstasy any time she exerted any physical effort, and a regular segment on the show is “In Your Pants” – intimate sex advice with Munn and visiting relationship columnist Anna David (who just happens to be gorgeous).
No matter where you watch it, “Attack of the Show!” is easily the best tech-flavored show on any network. But if you aren't in the mood for some extra reading and don't want to hunt for the best segments, stick to your living room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
